Results 61 - 80 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91224 | ||
Tim, You are seriously wrong. Hebrew word Adonai is the word for Lord, not Jehovah. Yhvh is in English Jehovah. That is consistant. I personally do not have a problem with verbally expressing God's name as did the Jews who added to the Law. I am no dumby when it comes to this subject as you try and make it appear. As far as manuscripts go, we have no "originals" of either the Hebrew nor Greek, so how do you prove anything scripturally? Someone could have changed it. And then you mention consistant in translating word. Show me a translation that is consistant in translating the Hebrew words say, "nephesh", "hades", and yes "adonai". Be accurate in this because I do not think you can do it. As you know it is an easy request but you still wont show me one translation of the Bible that does it. Truthfinder |
||||||
62 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91186 | ||
Hi Tim, You have it wrong again, as I do agree with what they actually wrote and this is the whole point of my discussion. Sincerely, the problem with this whole issue is that it is the basis of the trinity doctrine and thus proves it wrong, so I understand that you must take your stand against what I present. Be as it may though, it took "changing" "adding to this scroll" to get the many to believe in it just as was prophesied would happen at 2 Thess 2:3 "the apostasy". And I suppose you support the "changing" done and brazenly admittedly so by modern translations of the Old Testament too, Tim? I notice many, no doubt to your pleasure, today have accomplished having God's personal name completely removed and yet people are still buying them. All I can say is that the powers that be, the establishments of our higher theology institutions are succeeding in fulfilling Bible prophesy, and for that I’m happy, though sad for their victims. I bid you farewell. Truthfinder |
||||||
63 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91170 | ||
(2nd part) Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, Jehovah. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. Most assuredly someone was trying to hide something here. As I have posted in times past, the use of the Tetra in the Christian Greek Scriptures is not speculative but sound evidence as, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.” This presentation of the facts of history in the transmission of Bible manuscripts is “evidence” clearly not mere “speculation” as you assert. Paul in Romans 10:13 quoted Joel 2:32 where he say, “For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” If I were to read just the NASB or the NIV the whole point would be obscured! If I read Psalm 110:1 in the same versions, “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand.” would be obscured. And likewise Matthew quoted this Psalm at Matt 22:44. How clear can it be? Something in Matthew 22:44 is missing in many modern translations! Yes, God’s name was taken out, when Jehovah God had it initially and intentionally. In conclusion, I believe what Jesus himself told us what he had accomplished while on earth. If he had not used his father’s name, how could he have said as he did in John 17:26, “ I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”? Truthfinder |
||||||
64 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91169 | ||
Hi Tim, You say I speculate? Quite the contrary. It is and I say sadly, modern scholars, in their quest for the “real” Jesus, that have hidden his true identity behind layers of baseless speculation, pointless doubts, and unfounded theorizing. Should God allow the evidence to be so dubious, equivocal and ambiguous as to make any deductions regarding his name mere speculation? I think not! First of all, unlike the thinking of many that post here, the theme of the 66 Bible books, is the vindication of Jehovah’s name and sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his kingdom under Christ, the promised “Seed”. Christ’s perfectly fulfilling the reason for being sent here was paramount in the success of this issue settlement. And during his 3 and a half years of preaching how did he show us what his primary purpose was? In his model prayer of Matthew 6:9 his initial words concentrated on the prime issue of vindicating Jehovah’s name and his sovereignty (right to rule), where he says, “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” We notice the two things of utmost importance to Jesus, since it was first mentioned and it was the “model” prayer. 1) God’s “name” to be sanctified and 2) the kingdom rule. Because of his keeping sinless integrity, Jesus vindicated his heavenly Father as the rightful universal Sovereign and proved the Devil to be a base and gross liar. Proverbs 27:11 can be applied at least in principle if not wholly as Jehovah’s words to his Son Jesus, “Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me.” I adamantly believe that the most wicked Adversary, Satan the Devil, caused men and angels (or demons) to join his opposition to God and man. Satan first showed his opposition in the garden of Eden, where, through cruel and underhanded action, he led Eve and then Adam into a course of rebellion that brought sin and death upon all mankind. In the courts of heaven Satan displayed his antagonism, charging Jehovah with bribing Job for his loyalty, a charge which became this issue of universal importance. Job 1:6-11; 2:1-5. The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar personal name. Actually his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times known as the Tetragrammaton. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980), p. 13, says: “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ´adona(y) for the proper name itself. This was the error ridden tradition that Jesus would have no part in, Tim. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels e and a to remind the reader to pronounce ´adona(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature alone occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests its importance to the Bible’s author, whose name it is. (1st of 2 parts) Truthfinder |
||||||
65 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91021 | ||
Hi Radioman2, I have posted over 150 different translations of the New Testament that use Jehovah. So it is NOT "just" the NWT. Secondly, I have presented the evidence for "restoring" not "inserting" the name where it was in the original in past posts. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation is not proof that the originals did not have it in them. The KIL is based primarily on the Greek text by Westcott and Hort 1881 and in the KIL on pages 11 and 12 is the explaination for using older manuscripts when "restoring" the divine name Jehovah where it was originally. Truthfinder |
||||||
66 | Where is Jesus called "...the God"? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90976 | ||
Hi Ray, You wrote: The Jehovah's Witness would not agree with us if we said as does John 1:2, "This One was in the beginning with God." Ray, Why did you say that? Quote me one Jehovah's Witness that would not agree that Jesus was in the beginning with God. I know you feel you are doing the right thing here but you are in error, as all witness believe that. That is a verse that clearly shows Jesus is not Almighty God, because he was "with" God. How can you be Almighty God if you as John 1:1 says you as Almighty God are with Almighty God? That too is the reason John 1:1 must be translated as "and the Word was a god". The "context" shows the Word was with Almighty God. Thus for two reasons, 1) the lack of the definite article and 2) the context, tells us that the translation "and the Word was a god" is better than Moffatt's, Schonfield's and Goodspeed's translations that say "and the Word was divine". 3) Another reason must be included; What does the rest of the Bible say about Jesus and Almighty God? This verse must agree with the whole Bible. Note what Vincent Taylor says: "Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used(in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, Expository Times, 73, No.4(Jan.1962), p.118. You also wrote: Looking at verse 8 they would not see the difference between the man called John and the Man called Jesus. John 1:8, "That one [John the baptist] was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness of the Light. There [that One, He] was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." Ray, where do you get your information? This again is not true. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. That's what the scriptures say isn't it? Well, if the Scriptures say that, then it must be true, through and through. Truthfinder |
||||||
67 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90883 | ||
Hi Flinkywood, Did I quote something you disagree with? I quote what I feel is truth and then comment on it to make a point. With so many differing ideas, proper logical reasoning should help us all to come to an accurate understanding of a particular idea. Tradition, miss-translation and philosophy, and yes propaganda are a snare, but I assure you my friend I am not the culprit. Yes, perhaps possessing differing interpretation of many here but I can base my logic and reasoning on what God in the Bible, originally said. Paul tell me at Eph 5:6, Let no man deceive YOU with empty words, for because of the aforesaid things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partakers with them; 8 for YOU were once darkness, but YOU are now light in connection with [the] Lord. Go on walking as children of light, 9 for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth. 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and quit sharing with [them] in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving [them], 12 for the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate. 13 Now all the things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything that is being made manifest is light.” For me I do not want to be deceived. I do not want to be in the darkness. I keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord. Sorry I offended you. Please accept my apology. Truthfinder |
||||||
68 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90875 | ||
Hi Mommapbs, I was not implying that you care what Newton believed, I thought you might be interested in what he discovered. He proved that the manuscripts from which many modern translations base their translations on were tampered with. Tampered with to make Jesus appear to be one and the same as his God. Is that not confusing? Jesus' referring so many times to his God, if he himself were God? And John 1:1 the Logos (word) Jesus was "with" God. How can you be God if you are "with" God? Again modern translations try and mislead us by mis-translating John 1:1. I come to realize that so many times a person will believe what he "wants" to believe, but that just simply doesn't make it so. Yes, Jesus is GOD and should be worshipped as GOD, but GOD does not equal Almighty God. God means "mighty one" Jesus is Almighty God's Son. Jesus was the beginning of the creation of Almighty God. He had a beginning. Almighty GOD desirves to be worshipped as the Almighty GOD and his name is Jehovah. Ps 83:18 King James Version Truthfinder |
||||||
69 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90871 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). First, it should be noted that the text of John 1:1 itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Again note, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os´) in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os´] and [ho the·os´] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os´]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os´] is not the same thing as [ho the·os´] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579. The Hebrew Scriptures are consistently clear in showing that there is but one Almighty God, the Creator of all things and the Most High, whose name is Jehovah. (Ge 17:1; Isa 45:18; Ps 83:18) For that reason Moses could say to the nation of Israel: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.” (De 6:4, 5) The Christian Greek Scriptures do not contradict this teaching that had been accepted and believed by God’s servants for thousands of years, but instead they support it. (Mr 12:29; Ro 3:29, 30; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 1Ti 2:5) Jesus Christ himself said, “The Father is greater than I am” and referred to the Father as his God, “the only true God.” (Joh 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; Joh 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus’ ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.—1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10. These facts give solid support to a translation such as “the Word was a god” at John 1:1. The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things, and as God’s Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called “a god” or mighty one. The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called “Mighty God,” though not the Almighty God, and that he would be the “Eternal Father” of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, is called a “god” (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and propriety is God’s firstborn Son called “a god,” “the only-begotten god” as the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him. Truthfinder |
||||||
70 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90870 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! You error in these assertions. Millions, including myself, use the NWT. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have the copy rights to, publish, and distribute the following Bible translations in numerous languages: King James Version 1611, The Bible in Living English 1972 by Steven T. Byington, Diaglott of the No. 1209 Vatican Manuscript 1942 by Benjamin Wilson, and the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1969 texts of Brooke Foss Westcott D. D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D. D. 1881 edition. You also wrote: The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation You are correct since this is the most accurate translation. Notice the following translations of John 1:1 The Greek Diaglott,1864 Benjamin Wilson. The three different translations by Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed (An American Translation) have: "...and the Word was divine." Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God." The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was, the Word was." Reflecting an understanding of John 1:1 with the New World Translation's: "and the Word was a god." we have: The Emphatic Diaglott (1864), Benjamin Wilson London and New York. The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808) The New Testament in Greek and English (A.Kneeland, 1822.) A Literal Translation Of The New Testament. (H.Heinfetter, 1863) Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R.Young, 1885) The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G.W.Horner, 1911) Das Evangelium nach Johannes(J.Becker, 1979) The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J.L.Tomanec, 1958) The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists(J.S.Thompson, 1829) Das Evangelium nach Johannes(S.Schulz, 1975) These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word (the·os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, the·os´ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os´. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. You also wrote: This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, These other Greek Scholars, Bible translators (of John 1:1) would most certainly take offense in this comment since they consider themselves Christians. The fact that God sent his “only-begotten” Son to the earth is not an assumption. The Holy Scriptures teach it. Justice required satisfaction. Man, though created perfect, fell from that state through sin and thus Adam and his offspring came under God’s condemnation. Justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam. But love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied, and yet without any violation of justice, repentant offspring of sinner Adam could be forgiven and could achieve peace with God. (Col 1:19-23) Therefore, Jehovah “sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1Jo 4:10) Notice in verse 10 that God sent. It does not say God came. (Heb 2:17) Propitiation is that which makes propitious, or favorable. Jesus’ propitiatory sacrifice removes the reason for God to condemn a human creature and makes possible the extending to him of God’s favor and mercy. This propitiation removes the charge of sin and the resulting condemnation to death in the case of spiritual Israel and all others availing themselves of it. 1Jo 2:1, 2. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. If Jesus were the Almighty God of this verse then the ransom does not fulfill its purpose of this substitutional arrangement. Truthfinder |
||||||
71 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90776 | ||
Hmmmmmmm, then why did Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) who is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early church." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)say what he did? Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers." [Quote] We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the article, not without it. God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father. [Unquote] For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being *because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father." What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and hO QEOS in John 1:1. As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god." Truthfinder |
||||||
72 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90769 | ||
Hi again Mommapbs, You asked me “Who do I say Jesus is”. I understand the Bible clearly teaches through and through that Jesus is the “Son of God”. I believe Bible translations today confuse millions by “changing the original” into thinking Jesus is himself Almighty God. Through the centuries scribes substituted the word Lord or God for what the original had in it. If this was not done then one can easily see that Jesus is the Son of God and not Almighty God himself. The apostle John in Revelation 22:18 warned of this. I have posted in the past well over 150 different Bible translations that have restored the name of Jehovah in the New Testament alone. My only question is how and why would anyone continue to use a Bible translation that admits to its own errors? Are you a truth finder or do you want to believe a non-truth. Popular tradition has it that the fall of an apple started Sir Isaac Newton on the way to discovering the universal law of gravitation. Whatever may be the truth of this tradition, there is no question about Newton’s remarkable powers of reason. Concerning his renowned scientific work the Principia, we are told: “The whole development of modern science begins with this great book. For more than 200 years it reigned supreme.” Celebrated as were Newton’s scientific discoveries, he himself humbly acknowledged his human limitations. He was modest. Shortly before his death in 1727 he said of himself: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”2 Newton appreciated that God is the Source of all truth, and in line with the deep reverence he had for his Creator, he appears to have spent even more time searching after the true God than he did in searching out scientific truths. An analysis of all that Newton wrote reveals that out of some 3,600,000 words only 1,000,000 were devoted to the sciences, whereas some 1,400,000 were on religious topics. Would you like to read what he discovered and see why he believed that same as I do about who Jesus is? Truthfinder |
||||||
73 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90764 | ||
(2nd part) What religious group today has earned for itself the reputation of faithfulness to Christian principles and separateness from this world, with its members being hated and persecuted? Well, what worldwide Christian organization of well over 6,000,000 corresponds in every respect to historical descriptions of the early Christians? Regarding these, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The primitive Christian community, although considered at first but another sect within the Jewish milieu, proved unique in its theological teaching, and more particularly in the zeal of its members, who served as witnesses to Christ ‘in all Judea and Samaria and even to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1.8).”—Volume 3, page 694. Notice the expressions “considered . . . but another sect,” “unique in its . . . teaching,” “zeal . . . as witnesses.” And now observe how that same encyclopedia describes Jehovah’s Witnesses: “A sect . . . Witnesses are deeply convinced that the end of the world will come within a very few years. This vivid belief appears to be the strongest driving force behind their indefatigable zeal. . . . The fundamental obligation of each member of the sect is to give witness to Jehovah by announcing His approaching Kingdom. . . . They regard the Bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct . . . To be a true Witness one must preach effectively in one way or another.”—Volume 7, pages 864-5. 5 In what respects are the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses unique? The New Catholic Encyclopedia mentions a few: “They [Jehovah’s Witnesses] condemn the Trinity as pagan idolatry . . . They consider Jesus as the greatest of Jehovah’s Witnesses, ‘a god’ (so they translate John 1.1), inferior to no one but to Jehovah. . . . He died as a man and was raised as an immortal spirit Son. His Passion and death were the price he paid to regain for mankind the right to live eternally on earth. Indeed, the ‘great multitude’ (Ap 7.9) of true Witnesses hope in an earthly Paradise; only 144,000 faithful (Ap 7.4; 14.1, 4) may enjoy heavenly glory with Christ. The wicked will undergo complete destruction. . . . Baptism—which Witnesses practice by immersion . . . [is] the exterior symbol of their dedication to the service of Jehovah God. . . . Jehovah’s Witnesses have attracted publicity by refusing blood transfusions . . . Their conjugal and sexual morality is quite rigid.” Jehovah’s Witnesses may be unique in these respects, but their position on all these points is solidly based on the Bible Truthfinder |
||||||
74 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90763 | ||
Hi Mommapbs, well said. After reading and understanding what the word “cult” has come to mean in recent years, the JW cannot be accurately classified as one. Stop and think what the situation was like in Jesus’ day for a moment. Would you “accurately” classify the first century Christians as “cult members”. Something to think about it. I would have to answer in the affirmative. But to me today a cult is a religion that is said to be unorthodox or that emphasizes devotion according to prescribed ritual. And many cults follow a living human leader, and often their adherents live in groups apart from the rest of society. Remember in the recent past what happened in Waco Texas? For 50 days, hundreds of government agents laid siege to a compound with enough guns to wage a small war. The standoff ended in a showdown that left 86 dead, including at least 17 children. But who was the enemy? An army of drug-dealing mobsters? A guerrilla faction? No. As you may know, the “enemy” was a group of religious devotees, members of a cult. Their tragedy made an inconspicuous community the focus of international attention. The news media flooded the airwaves and the printed page with a barrage of reports, analyses, and comments on the dangers of fanatical cults. We were reminded of previous instances in which cult members were led to death by their leaders: the 1969 Manson murders in California; the 1978 mass suicide of cult members in Jonestown, Guyana; the 1987 murder-suicide pact engineered by cult leader Park Soon-ja of Korea, which resulted in the death of 32 members. The standard for what is orthodox, however, should be God’s Word, and Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly adhere to the Bible. Their worship is a way of life, not a ritual devotion. They neither follow a human nor isolate themselves from the rest of society. They live and work in the midst of other people. Jesus himself identified the true religion by saying, “by their fruits” you would recognize them. From God’s standpoint, a religion’s acceptability is not based on just one factor. For a religion to be acceptable to him, its teachings and activities must conform to his written Word of truth, the Bible. (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17) The fruitage of God-approved worship must conform to Jehovah God’s standards. He further identified them as ones that “have love among themselves”. John 13:34, 35 Do they put themselves out by going from door to door to help ones understand Bible truths? I would have to say that that is an expression of love of neighbor. Do they “kill”, in wars or abortions? No, again love would move a true Christian not to kill fellow humans. Truthfinder (continued) |
||||||
75 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88482 | ||
Hi again Pastor Glenn, ……….This is why it is better to set trinity discussion aside for now as we determine the question of Jesus being Jehovah. This is the key. Since it is your favorite version, I want to know what the NWT has to say in Psalm 102.……. ………Yes, it is wrong to change the scripture. But, this is a brick wall to say which side is changing it……. Well, I do not know of any Bible scholar that will honestly admit that the original texts did not contain the tetragramaton, do you? I can not come to any other conclusion that these changes by Jewish tradition were seriously wrong and worse yet has mislead untold millions to confusing which “Lord” the Bible is referring to when “Lord” is used. The NWT among many other translations makes this matter clear and simple, by restoring “Jehovah” where it was originally in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. "An in depth study of Hebrews 1:8, shows first that it is addressed to the Son of God, but can be rendered either, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” or, “God is thy throne for ever and ever,” since there is no verb “is” in either the Greek or in the Hebrew at Psalm 45:6, from which this is a quotation. In keeping with its principles to honor God and remain consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, the New World Translation here reads: “God is your throne forever.” " ……….I would like to know whether you see the NWT is consistant in translating to “God is your throne forever.” in both places: Psalm 45:6, as well as, Hebrew 1:8. What does it say? The same with Psalm 102:25-27 compared to Heb 1:10-12? …….. Well, let us see. In the NWT Psalm 45:6 reads, 6 God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever; The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness. 7 You have loved righteousness and you hate wickedness. That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners. Again this verse: That is why God (Jehovah), your (King of Israel, also Jesus) God (Jehovah), has anointed you (worshipper of God, King of Israel Solomon, also fulfilled in Jesus) with the oil of exultation more than your partners. Notes: for Ps. 45:6 of the NASB Study Bible says, “Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as “god.” (2 Sam. 19:21) … as a title because of his special relationship with God.” end quote. In this same footnote it says that other men are referred to as “gods” in the Bible. It concludes saying, “In Christ, the Son of David, it is fulfilled.” And Heb. 1:8-12 reads, NWT, ” 8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever And Psalm 102:25 reads, NWT, 25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of your hands. Here the psalmist was talking about Jehovah God, but the apostle Paul applied these words to Jesus Christ as you say in Hebrews 1:10, 11 As it turns out, these words apply to Jesus, for he acted as Jehovah’s Agent in creating the universe just as Colossians 1:15, 16 tells us. So Jesus, too, could be said to have “laid the foundations of the earth.” Yes, all three were involved in creating the universe and man. (Let us..), God’s active force or holy, God’s Son and he himself. Truthfinder |
||||||
76 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88415 | ||
2nd part RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, the AT, Mo, TC convery the same idea as the New World Translation which reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. And yes, Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. Concerning Hebrews 1:8, 9 quoting Psalm 45:6, 7, note what the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26. You can believe me on this or ignore it and believe what you want but truth is truth and truth is found in this respect. Truthfinder |
||||||
77 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88414 | ||
Hi Pastor Glenn, I have several other Bible translations of which I am reading the verses you quote, in particular Hebrews 1:8. And you know what? Different thoughts are expressed, depending on the Bible version. And you are correct in all that you say in your post concerning Hebrews 1:8 being a quotation of Psalm 45:6 and I certainly see why you conclude that Jesus would be one and the same as Jehovah. Again, I say this because of the way the translations, versions render these passages. Due to the fact that there are at least two renderings and two ideas conveyed, one at least, is wrong. Both could be wrong but at least one is wrong. If you have a leaning toward accepting the trinity doctrine which rendering will you support? Likewise, if you feel the Bible does not teach the trinity then which rendering would you support? The answer is obvious. Perhaps you were not aware of this. This is the key that I mention again and again. In posts past, I have shown and explained many verses that had been mis-translated and some that have been changed, and some that have been added to support the trinity. This is all unacceptable. This is totally heretical. I am sure you are disagreeing with me now because you feel the trinity is "holy" and indeed taught by God through his Word the Bible. Besides the fact that God's personal name had been taken from the Holy Scriptures which in itself should make one question the trinity, I will give you one more example of many and then show that Hebrews 1:8 is yet another. Notice 1 John 5:8 according to the Authorized Version or King James and before it, Wycliffe (1380), and even Tyndale and Cranmer, and also the Geneva version of 1557. "For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness (in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one)." The final part in parenthesis was the added portion. Were you aware of these heretical actions? 1( Removing texts, changing texts,(the yhvh issue) 2) additions made to promote the trinity idea. I feel they are heretical because that do not teach the truth, but you have to agree that they are heretical because they are what Rev 22:18 “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life. Again please answer for me this question; How do you feel about all this? Do you feel it wrong to remove say just one word from the Bible or to just change a word to something else? An in depth study of Hebrews 1:8, shows first that it is addressed to the Son of God, but can be rendered either, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” or, “God is thy throne for ever and ever,” since there is no verb “is” in either the Greek or in the Hebrew at Psalm 45:6, from which this is a quotation. In keeping with its principles to honor God and remain consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, the New World Translation here reads: “God is your throne forever.” (continued) |
||||||
78 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88306 | ||
2nd part. ........John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.......... This translation is with the English capitalization is misleading and bias toward trinitarian thinking. It is grammatically correct but not correct because of the context. Many many other translations have it differently and have it agreeing with the context and also the Greek grammar. The very first English translation (William Tyndale) accurately translated it. Have you read it? I have listed in other posts numerous older translations that translate it differently and in full agreement with both the context and the Bible as a whole. ........14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. " Certainly the Word Jesus was in heaven before coming to earth and reflected the his Father's glory for he said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Jesus perfectly reflected his Father's divine qualities through and through. ...........Jesus Christ is not just a "junior partner" to God. A junior partner could not be allowed to stand in for salvation of all men for all time......... .........Truthfinder, throw that NWT away and read Hebrews 11-12 again. Read John chapter 1 again and Hebrews chapter 1 again. A junior partner would have had to say "and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto the father". But instead He said: Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me......... John 12:32, Titus 2:11, and 1 Timother 2:3,4 all refer to “the salvation of all men,” according to the rendering of RS, RS, KJ, NE, TEV, etc. The Greek expressions rendered “all” and “everyone” in these verses are inflected forms of the word pas. As shown in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962, Vol. I, p. 46), pas can also mean “every kind or variety.” So, in the above verses, instead of “all,” the expression “every kind of” could be used; or “all sorts of,” as is done in NW. Which is correct—“all” or the thought conveyed by “all sorts of”? Well, which rendering is also harmonious with the rest of the Bible? The latter one is. Consider Acts 10:34, 35; Revelation 7:9, 10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9. (Note: Other translators also recognize this sense of the Greek word, as is shown by their renderings of it at Matthew 5:11—“all kinds of,” RS, TEV; “every kind of,” NE; “all manner of,” KJ.) No greater dishonor can be done to our heavenly Father than to take his beloved name out of his Holy Book as most "modern" translations have done so as to mislead its readers to believing that He and His Son are one and the same. Don't you get it? That was the reason Jehovah was originally in his Holy Word. If he didn't want it in there why did he put it there 7,000 times. No one on this forum has answered that question since I periodically ask it over the past 6 months. Why do so many people who call themselves "Christian" even dispise God's name Jehovah? Many even say that Jehovah isn't his name because we don't know how it was pronounced in Hebrew! What a copout. They readily use all the other names in their English for, including Jesus! So, you see Pastor Glenn, I believe the Word of God and I believe it when it says Jehovah is the Almighty God and his Son is not Almighty God but indeed his Son. Truthfinder |
||||||
79 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88305 | ||
Hi Pastor Glenn, You wrote: ...... ........ .......The scriptures that you give show the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ........ When you say "deity" of the Lord Jesus Christ do you mean Jesus is a mighty spirit being that has been given all authority in the universe and was maker of both the angels in heaven and material universe eons of time ago? Well certainly, I totally agree. But if you mean that our Lord Jesus is the God that Jesus told Satan at Mat. 4:10 you must render sacred service that I will have to agree with Jesus and not you. Yes, the deity of Christ must be relative, otherwise the ransome sacrifice is nulified, Jesus really is not God's "only-begotten son", and each time Jesus called his Father "God" was meaningless. Can you imagine the Father ever saying, "My God" in reference to his son? I can't and don't think any reasonable person would. Yet Jesus does numerous times. Thus Rev. 3:14 tells us that after His resurection the "Beginning of the creation of God", means Jesus was the beginning, the very first creation of his Father eons of time ago. ........Rev 3 14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans[6] write, "These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: We see this as referring to Jesus, after His ressurection, as the firstborn of a new spiritual order of beings. He is the second Adam in the sence that all that have faith in Him can become part of God's family......... ........Col 1 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Can't you see why He must be God? Not merely "a god"? All scripture pointed to Him to save all that accept Him throughout time......... Col. 1:15 simply says that "He (Jesus) is the image (not God himself) of the invisible God, the firstborn (first not second born son of God) (angels are sons on God but not his firstborn) and verst 16 For by Him (Jesus) all things were created (the Father created all the other sons in heaven and material universe by using Jesus, he was his "masterworker") and verse 17 tells us that Jesus was the firstborn from the dead (he was the first to be resurrected to heaven having died a human). Certainly Jesus being a human proved faithful and made the ransome sacrifice valid. If he had failed then God would have had to made other arrangements for mankind. But if he had been Almighty God himself then where is the love of offering himself on behalf of mankind. No he offered his beloved "son" as a ransom for "all". ........Abraham saw Him. Job saw Him. Jacob wrestled with Him. The mercy seat in the Ark of the covenant represented Him. No one can stand in for God like that. He must "be" God......... Pastor Glenn, please explain this verse then. John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." You say mere man as actually seen God Almighty? And who is the "only-begotten god" ? Truthfinder |
||||||
80 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88275 | ||
Hmmm, I don't know how I did that. At any rate,you quoted Titus 2:13 when you wrote, Note what Paul said about Jesus, and remember, this was not easy for him, as he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee. He wrote of Jesus, "looking for the blessed hope ad the appearing of the golry of our great God AND Savior, Christ Jesus." I ask why was this not easy for him, as you say he "was" a Pharisee (past tense). Just curious. Anyway, you may or may not know that many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse you mentioned as you did as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” Such translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a “rule” of Greek grammar. Yet you must come to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a translation. A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, “glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction “and.” Over a century ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a “rule” applying in such constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject. This would mean that “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptive of Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’ Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so. In fact, the validity of the “rule” being applied in Titus has been much debated by scholars. For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: “No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it” as meaning, but he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that cannot be settled by grammatical rules. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, . . . ”—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3. Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” who is Jehovah, and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams. Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [11] >> |